Air Force positioning itself to be more irrelevant

No, there will be manned aircraft after the F-35. The optionally manned bomber that Gates wanted built, is going to most likely be manned now. The
Air Force has said that unmanned technology at that level would be prohibitively expensive for the industry to produce, so they're looking at manned
options instead of optionally manned. That's my problem with the leadership.

The USAF should be years ahead of everyone (and they are now), and stay years ahead, but they're going to lose that lead, because of the entrenchment
of the manned aircraft mentality. Other countries are catching up (allies and not so friendly nations). China has recently flown a Predator type UAV
(not as good as the Predator, but not half bad either), Europe has flown their first stealthy UAV in the Neuron, with Taranis flying next year. The
US still has the lead in stealth, and in UAVs, but what's going to happen when they stop building UAVs, or very slowly develop UAVs? If they wait on
the Navy UCLASS program, they're going to wait 10-15 years minimum, without a truly new UAV coming online. That's a minimum of 10 years to allow
others to catch up to where the US is today. That's a long time, and even then, the USAF is going to have to wait years for any new UAV to be
developed, so we're actually looking at more like 20 years for the MQ-X program. That's huge.

I've followed the technology side for years, but only recently got deep into the political side of things, during the KC-X fiasco. What I've found
over the last few years is truly amazing. It's stunning to see the entrenchment that I always knew was there, and how deep it really goes. And it
just gets worse, because it won't go away.

You don't know that to a certainty. It's a long time until the Long Range Strike-Bomber
(LRS-B) will enter service and that program is highly classified. We'll have to wait and see what the aircraft ends up as but I think there is a
strong possibility that it will be optionally manned by the time it enters service if it isn't cancelled.
This is interesting.

However, despite strong support from senior leaders at the Pentagon, it is unclear if the LRS programme will survive a "sequestration"
budget-cutting measure, which will come into effect on 2 January. If Congress and the president are unable to find a solution, another $500 billion
will be cut from the US defence budget in the next 10 years. If that happens, "all bets are off", says Mark Gunzinger, an analyst at the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. With an aircraft the size of a strategic bomber, there is little cost difference between a purely manned and an
optionally manned aircraft, says Gunzinger: "For large combat aircraft, it is not much of a factor at all."

If the USAF continually changes or adds ever more elaborate requirements, the LRS-B could suffer the same fate as previous USAF bomber projects
such as the B-2 or the ill-fated Next Generation Bomber (NGB), which was cancelled in 2009.

I've always been a fan of using UAVs for SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) in heavily defended airspace. If the USAF continues in this
direction, they better increase their CSAR (Combat Search and Rescue) assets. Anybody wantint to know why just has to look at the F-15 that was lost
over Libya last year.

Concept from Lockheed Martin about the fighter after the F-22, which at this point really is hard to imagine. 2030 is a long way into the future. A
generational leap above the F-22 is something I can only imagine. A super stealthy hypersonic UCAV that can do very high G maneuvers?

Simply removing the pilot from an aircraft or introducing incremental improvements in signature and range does not constitute a generational leap
in capability. These improvements are already being looked at for our 5th generation fighters.

Greatly increased speed, longer range, extended loiter times, multi-spectral stealth, ubiquitous situation awareness, and self-healing structures
and systems are some of the possible technologies we envision for the next generation of fighter aircraft. Next generation fighter capabilities will
be driven by game changing technological breakthroughs in the areas of propulsion, materials, power generation, sensors, and weapons that are yet to
be fully imagined.

I don't know it for a certainty no, but the current leadership has already said that an unmanned aircraft of that size, and design may be beyond the
capability of the current designs, and prohibitively expensive, and they are looking at going manned for any new bomber. So the odds of seeing an
unmanned design for the LRS-B is dropping quickly.

Therefore, the announced decision to make LRS-B optionally manned represents a well-considered decision for the nation, providing it with
maximum operational flexibility at acceptable cost, investing wisely in future capability, and taking advantage of a strategic opportunity to
significantly expand key unmanned technologies and autonomous capabilities without holding the program, or mission need, at risk to them.

They're going to leave it open, but with what they're doing to the UAV programs already in existence, I don't see them going unmanned, unless they're
forced to. The current fleet of UAVs was rammed down their throats by Gates, when he was SECDEF, and now that he's gone, they're trying to get rid of
them. There is no excuse for cutting the RQ-4 fleet and saying that the U-2 is cheaper and fits better with their missions. There is some evidence
that costs of the U-2 operations were deliberately shifted to the Global Hawk operations budget, and hidden there to make the Global Hawk appear more
expensive, and to help justify their decision to cut brand new aircraft from service.

We need some kind of new bomber. The B-52 is going to be flying until 98 years old, the youngest turned 60 this year. The B-1 is from the early 80s,
and the youngest B-2s were from the mid to late 90s. They're getting long in the tooth, and the B-52 can only be used as a cruise missile platform if
there is any kind of real defense system in the area.

I knew you'd mention the B-52s and B-1Bs and how old they are. Those B-52s are amazing to still be flying for such an old design.
Well I suppose the USAF will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century one way or another.

It's not just them, it's the entire Air Force fleet, but they relate to the LRS-B program. The entire AF fleet is as old as the pilots flying them,
or even older. The only way they're going to join the 21st century is if someone forces them to.

Employing UAV's for the role of SEAD or Air Interdiction is completely unrealistic at the moment with >1s latency between controller and plane.. Win a
dogfight when you're lagging at least a second behind your opponent. Evade a SAM, where timing and reaction is absolutely critical, when what you are
seeing is more than a second in the past.

The USAF is developing UAV technology. See the X-47 and probably other not so likely unmanned platforms. The problem is that manned aircraft are far
more practical and capable, and will be for the foreseeable future.

UAV's have always and will for at least a few more years be embarrassed by manned fighters in all roles except perhaps ISR.

If the UAV is stealthed and going after fixed positions, it will do just fine. If a Hellfire can be targeted on a moving truck from a Predator, I
can't see any reason why it can't be used against a radar, gun or missile site.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.